Book banning

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 83
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    A few bans of books draws attention to the First Amendment:

    In Nashville, TN a school pastor of St. Edward School banned the entire Harry Potter series from the library because, “The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.”[1] Forgive my raised eyebrows, because we might also inquire if by utterance of prayer, “human beings risk conjuring[heavenly] spirits into the presence of the person[praying]?” One might suggest goose and gander? One might suggest one’s evil is another’s good? And who, after all, has been assigned the task of moral jurisprudence but each of us, individually? We cite freedom of religion, and that also implies the choice of an individual to be free from religion, at least in its traditional context, which may not, I suggest, ban practitioners of witchcraft.

    Further, To Kill a Mockingbird[Harper Lee] was suggested by removed from school libraries and classroom curricula due to its use of language that is now considered non-politically correct[2] [remind me when Congress officially passed legislation defining specifically excluded words from our vocabulary - No, what you're thinking of was not an act of Congress, but a matter of policy by the FCC], and words which incite racial hatred [and tell me when Congress passed legislation defining our inability to engage self-control; to resist being incited to uncivil action] based on what someone else says.

    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[Mark Twain] should be banned for the same reason as Mockingbird.[3]

    Of Mice and Men[John Steinbeck] due to profanity.[4]

    Are we to ban the Holy Bible, the Q’ran, the Torah, or other Holy Writ for much the same reasons?

    Are we to ban Jack and Jill for offending others whose proclivities to 26 other genders do not include M & F?

    Why don’t we ban The Green New Deal because it discriminates against other natural, organic colors?

    Shall we ban the Communist Manifesto because it misinterprets what bourgeois means?

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    I can accept that there are certain books that should be banned. For example if it calls for violence against a specific group (like exterminating the jews for example). That kind of thing crosses a line that I don't think we need to allow. 

    but short of that, i would pretty much agree with what I assume your point is, that we shouldn't ban books just because we don't like their content. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.
    that is, in no way, a response to what i said. I said we shouldn't ban books because we disagree with them. We should ban them if they cross a serious line, like calling for violence. 

  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,586
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @HistoryBuff
    No. No censorship of ideas. Bad HistoryBuff! Bad! 
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,628
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @HistoryBuff
    For example if it calls for violence against a specific group (like exterminating the jews for example). That kind of thing crosses a line that I don't think we need to allow. 
    The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?

    The Declaration of Independence calls for violence against the British.  Shall we ban the Declaration of Independence?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @oromagi
    The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?
    I would say religious books are in their own category separate from regular books.

    The Declaration of Independence calls for violence against the British.  Shall we ban the Declaration of Independence?
    that's not a book. Also, it primarily calls for an independent government. It does not call for wantonly killing british people. The example I used was books calling for the extermination of jewish people. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I can accept that there are certain books that should be banned. 

    we shouldn't ban books just because we don't like their content. 
    Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2 
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    r there banned books in China?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2 
    are you a little slow? i was quite explicit that the line is calling for violence. That isn't "content we don't like". That is content calling for crimes. 

  • Lit
    Lit avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 42
    0
    1
    4
    Lit avatar
    Lit
    I don't think there's any reason for banning books considering man is good.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @oromagi
    The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?
    And it also calls for violence against adulterers.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    That isn't "content we don't like". That is content calling for crimes. 
    Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff

    OED: violence: "The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

    The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..." 

    So, legally, I can conduce all manner of mayhem against my own property, and, as long as that force is not unlawful, I can do it all day long, into the night. Should a story about such an act be banned? Got to know what your words mean. Got to know their history, too, because it was not always so. So, how's that history, buff?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,306
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Intelligence_06
    r there banned books in China?

    How could you know?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.
    you aren't making any sense. I'm saying calling for violence is an order of magnitude greater of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether someone likes it or not. 

    The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..." 
    now you are just willfully misrepresenting what I said. I said things like calling for the extermination of the jews should be grounds for banning, you responded with some bullshit about property damage.

    If you have no intention of actually discussing something, why bother starting this thread?
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @Greyparrot
    I don’t, this is why I ask you guys.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,454
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @fauxlaw
    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[Mark Twain] should be banned for the same reason as Mockingbird.
    Huck Finn and TKAM were required for us. I actually enjoyed them. There’s no reason they should be banned. Literature is an archive of history.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    why bother starting this thread?
    That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ILikePie5
    I entirely agree. But, there are idiots who think wiping put history destroys it. Funny thing. It always comes back to bite.
  • MarkWebberFan
    MarkWebberFan avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 45
    0
    1
    6
    MarkWebberFan avatar
    MarkWebberFan
    I live in Asia. IMHO, the listed reasons for banning are often common excuses for authoritarian governments to use in order to safeguard the public's "wellbeing". I don't agree with the rise of authoritarianism where I live but there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think it's a good idea for the West to emulate the East.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,819
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @HistoryBuff
    No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @janesix
    No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
    100% THIS.

    (IFF) YOU START KILLING PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU READ ABOUT IT IN A BOOK (THEN) YOU WERE PROBABLY JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @3RU7AL
    Bravo. The only banning; the only censorship should be that of individual, personal choice. Why must we accept that only others can make these choices for us? As I argued with HistoryBuff, to abdicate that choice to someone else is a matter of weakness, not strength.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,209
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    why bother starting this thread?
    That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.
    you started a thread asking a question, then refuse to actually engage when i gave my answer. You just intentionally misrepresent what I say and derail any potential debate. I can only assume you were either just trolling or just wanted to not actually discuss it.